You made two claims with zero evidence to back them up. They are only your projections of how you wish reality was. That is not the way things work. You need facts to back up your claims, not fantasy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThreatNo, its intent is to signal a point at which the US will consider taking military action. Apparently you all think theres some magical barrier attached to this line. If you could understand that there is no actual red line but rather a standard set for when US intervention would be required.
A threat is an act of coercion wherein an act is proposed to elicit a negative response. It is a communicated intent to inflict harm or loss on another person. It can be a crime in many jurisdictions. Threat (intimidation) is widely seen in animals, particularly in a ritualized form, chiefly in order to avoid the unnecessary physical violence that can lead to physical damage or death of both conflicting parties.
On Claim 1:
In your world Assad did not gas his people after Obama threatened him if he did so.
On Claim 2:
Assad gassed his people, remains in power. And has now been elevated to the person that will be in charge of destroying his chemical weapons. Before his gas attack Obama was working on arming the rebels and removing Assad. After the attack Assad's leadership of Syria has been legitimized by Obama.
Only you are living in fantasy land were Assad is out of power, and due to Obama's threats did not gas his people.
You just proved that you have no evidence. Repeating something stupid doesn't make it true. Fucking internet crackpots.
Wrong.
If the USA says we will attack if you do XYZ, and then you do XYZ, then the USA should attack.
otherwise no one will take anything we say seriously. Just like in this case. Syria gassed it's citizens, and what consequences does it suffer? Handing over its weapons to its buddy? Wow.
You libertards will defend whatever shit Obama gives you.
Whats the goal/point of the US attack? Seriously, what do we hope to accomplish? Show Assad we can fire some missiles from a few hundred miles away?
Say we do that, then what? A few military buildings got destroyed, a few innocent people get accidentally killed. Assasd is still in power.
What will the USA have gained?
Michal, which version of you should we be listening to?
To make that statement you have to deny reality.
Michal, which version of you should we be listening to?
When you post reality, let me know. Using your warped partisan wishes to project what you wish to be reality does NOT make it fact... just the ramblings of an insane person.
What was the purpose of Obama drawing a red line?
Michal regularly forgets what side he's on, other than the fact that whatever Obama does is wrong, e.g.:
Obama hesitating to strike? Obama is wrong and should strike.
Obama wants to strike? Obama is wrong for wanting to strike and should put decision to congress.
Obama puts decision to congress and holds off on striking? Obama is weak and folds to pressure for not striking.
Please show me what Obama has done with Syria that was the correct course of action?
your just pointing out his many levels of failure.
So Syria did not gas its people after Obama threatened them?
The question is to name a single thing that he has done wrong.
Out of curiosity, when you refer to "far right" is it the Neocons or Libertarians you'd be referring to?
I often equate the guys pushing for this war as moderates, given the way Bush and Neocons appeal to moderate voters and win elections.
Where do you see libertarians calling for a war to just to show that Obama's "not weak"?
Libertarians aren't typically the far right; the neocons are typically considered far right.
Are you under the impression that Obama is a godlike figure?
Do you understand that we can't control the world? We don't stop genocide in africa. We don't stop labor camps in NK. We aren't gods.
We can use diplomacy, which we are doing. We could also attack them, via airstrikes/drones or go to war with them. Americans and the world do not want war.
So what was the point of the red line if not to prevent Syria from gassing its people?
Libertarians have not been traditionally considered left or right. Most political surveys/quizzes that involve at least two dimensions show significant differences between libertarians and either liberals or conservatives.
In recent years there has been a trend towards somewhat of a blurring of lines between libertarians and conservatives. Part of this has been a natural response to certain policy shifts on the right, and some of it part of a deliberate campaign to coopt libertarianism by those who really aren't libertarian at all.
In the case of Syria, the push for war is coming mainly from two places: neocons who have never seen a war they didn't like, especially if they think it will help Israel (even though this probably wouldn't); and the ignorant, locker-room reactionary far right who care more about flag-waving and "looking strong" than doing what makes sense.